Underactuated Robotics

Algorithms for Walking, Running, Swimming, Flying, and Manipulation

Russ Tedrake

© Russ Tedrake, 2023
Last modified .
How to cite these notes, use annotations, and give feedback.

Note: These are working notes used for a course being taught at MIT. They will be updated throughout the Spring 2023 semester. Lecture videos are available on YouTube.

Previous Chapter Table of contents Next Chapter

Trajectory Optimization

I've argued that optimal control is a powerful framework for specifying complex behaviors with simple objective functions, letting the dynamics and constraints on the system shape the resulting feedback controller (and vice versa!). But the computational tools that we've provided so far have been limited in some important ways. The numerical approaches to dynamic programming which involve putting a mesh over the state space do not scale well to systems with state dimension more than four or five. Linearization around a nominal operating point (or trajectory) allowed us to solve for locally optimal control policies (e.g. using LQR) for even very high-dimensional systems, but the effectiveness of the resulting controllers is limited to the region of state space where the linearization is a good approximation of the nonlinear dynamics. The computational tools for Lyapunov analysis from the last chapter can provide, among other things, an effective way to compute estimates of those regions, and the sums-of-squares approaches to dynamic programming are still in their early days. We have not yet provided the mainstream computational tools for approximate optimal control that work for high-dimensional systems beyond the linearization around a goal. That is precisely the goal for this chapter.

In order to scale to high-dimensional systems, we are going to formulate a simpler version of the optimization problem. Rather than trying to solve for the optimal feedback controller for the entire state space, in this chapter we will instead attempt to find an optimal control solution that is valid from only a single initial condition. Instead of representing this as a feedback control function, we can represent this solution as a trajectory, $\bx(t), \bu(t)$, typically defined over a finite interval.

Problem Formulation

Given an initial condition, $\bx_0$, and an input trajectory $\bu(t)$ defined over a finite interval, $t\in[t_0,t_f],$ we can compute the long-term (finite-horizon) cost of executing that trajectory using the standard additive-cost optimal control objective, \[ J_{\bu(\cdot)}(\bx_0) = \ell_f (\bx(t_f)) + \int_{t_0}^{t_f} \ell(\bx(t),\bu(t)) dt. \] We will write the trajectory optimization problem as \begin{align*} \min_{\bu(\cdot)} \quad & \ell_f (\bx(t_f)) + \int_{t_0}^{t_f} \ell(\bx(t),\bu(t)) dt \\ \subjto \quad & \dot{\bx}(t) = f(\bx(t),\bu(t)), \quad \forall t\in[t_0, t_f] \\ & \bx(t_0) = \bx_0. \\ \end{align*} Many trajectory optimization problems will also include additional constraints, such as collision avoidance (e.g., where the constraint is that the signed distance between the robot's geometry and the obstacles stays positive) or input limits (e.g. $\bu_{min} \le \bu \le \bu_{max}$ ). Constraints can be defined for all time or some subset of the trajectory.

As written, the optimization above is an optimization over continuous trajectories. In order to formulate this as a numerical optimization, we must parameterize it with a finite set of numbers. Perhaps not surprisingly, there are many different ways to write down this parameterization, with a variety of different properties in terms of speed, robustness, and accuracy of the results. We will outline just a few of the most popular below; I would recommend Betts98+Betts01 for additional details.

It is worth contrasting this parameterization problem with the one that we faced in our continuous-dynamic programming algorithms. For trajectory optimization, we need a finite-dimensional parameterization in only one dimension (time), whereas in the mesh-based value iteration algorithms we had to work in the dimension of the state space. Our mesh-based discretizations scaled badly with this state dimension, and led to numerical errors that were difficult to deal with. Discreting over just one dimension (time), is fundamentally different. There is relatively much more known about discretizing solutions to differential equations over time, including work on error-controlled integration. And the number of parameters required for trajectory parameterizations scales linearly with the state dimension, instead of exponentially in mesh-based value iteration.

Convex Formulations for Linear Systems

Let us first consider the case of linear systems. In fact, if we start in discrete time, we can even defer the question of how to best discretize the continuous-time problem. There are a few different ways that we might "transcribe" this optimization problem into a concrete mathematical program.

Direct Transcription

For instance, let us start by writing both $\bu[\cdot]$ and $\bx[\cdot]$ as decision variables. Then we can write: \begin{align*} \min_{\bx[\cdot],\bu[\cdot]} \quad & \ell_f(\bx[N]) + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \ell(\bx[n],\bu[n]) \\ \subjto \quad & \bx[n+1] = {\bf A}\bx[n] + {\bf B}\bu[n], \quad \forall n\in[0, N-1] \\ & \bx[0] = \bx_0 \\ & + \text{additional constraints}. \end{align*} We call this modeling choice -- adding $\bx[\cdot]$ as decision variables and modeling the discrete dynamics as explicit constraints -- the "direct transcription". Importantly, for linear systems, the dynamics constraints are linear constraints in these decision variables. As a result, if we can restrict our additional constraints to linear inequality constraints and our objective function to being linear/quadratic in $\bx$ and $\bu$, then the resulting trajectory optimization is a convex optimization (specifically a linear program or quadratic program depending on the objective). We can reliably solve these problems to global optimality at quite large scale; these days it is common to solve these optimization online inside a high-rate feedback controller.

Trajectory optimization for the Double Integrator

We've looked at a few optimal control problems for the double integrator using value iteration. For one of them -- the quadratic objective with no constraints on $\bu$ -- we know now that we could have solved the problem "exactly" using LQR. But we have not yet given satisfying numerical solutions for the minimum-time problem, nor for the constrained LQR problem.

In the trajectory formulation, we can solve these problems exactly for the discrete-time double integrator, and with better accuracy for the continuous-time double integrator. Take a moment to appreciate that! The bang-bang policy and cost-to-go functions are fairly nontrivial functions of state; it's quite satisfying that we can evaluate them using convex optimization! The limitation, of course, is that we are only solving them for one initial condition at a time.

If you have not studied convex optimization before, you might be surprised by the modeling power of even of this framework. Consider, for instance, an objective of the form $$\ell(\bx,\bu) = |\bx| + |\bu|.$$ This can be formulated as a linear program. To do it, add additional decision variables ${\bf s}_x[\cdot]$ and ${\bf s}_u[\cdot]$ -- these are commonly referred to as slack variables -- and write $$\min_{\bx,\bu,{\bf s}_x,{\bf s}_u} \sum_n^{N-1} {\bf s}_x[n] + {\bf s}_u[n], \quad \text{s.t.} \quad {\bf s}_x[n] \ge x[n], \quad {\bf s}_x[n] \ge -x[n], \quad ...$$ The field of convex optimization is replete with tricks like this. Knowing and recognizing them are skills of the (optimization) trade. But there are also many relevant constraints which cannot be recast into convex constraints (in the original coordinates) with any amount of skill. An important example is obstacle avoidance. Imagine a vehicle that must decide if it should go left or right around an obstacle. This represents a fundamentally non-convex constraint in $\bx$; we'll discuss the implications of using non-convex optimization for trajectory optimization below.

Direct Shooting

The savvy reader might have noticed that adding $\bx[\cdot]$ as decision variables was not strictly necessary. If we know $\bx[0]$ and we know $\bu[\cdot]$, then we should be able to solve for $\bx[n]$ using forward simulation. For our discrete-time linear systems, this is particularly nice: \begin{align*}\bx[1] =& \bA\bx[0] + \bB\bu[0] \\ \bx[2] =& \bA(\bA\bx[0] + \bB\bu[0]) + \bB\bu[1] \\ \bx[n] =& \bA^n\bx[0] + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \bA^{n-1-k}\bB\bu[k].\end{align*} What's more, the solution is still linear in $\bu[\cdot]$. This is amazing... we can get rid of a bunch of decision variables, and turn a constrained optimization problem into an unconstrained optimization problem (assuming we don't have any other constraints). This approach -- using $\bu[\cdot]$ but not $\bx[\cdot]$ as decision variables and using forward simulation to obtain $\bx[n]$ -- is called the direct shooting transcription. For linear systems with linear/quadratic objectives in $\bx$, and $\bu$, it is still a convex optimization, and has less decision variables and constraints than the direct transcription.

Computational Considerations

So is direct shooting uniformly better than the direct transcription approach? I think it is not. There are a few potential reason that one might prefer the direct transcription:

For linear convex problems, the solvers are mature enough that these differences often don't amount to much. For nonlinear optimization problems, the differences can be substantial. If you look at trajectory optimization papers in mainstream robotics, you will see that both direct transcription and direct shooting approaches are used. (It used to be that you could guess which research lab wrote a paper simply by the transcription they use!)

It is also worth noting that the problems generated by the direct transcription have an important and exploitable "banded" sparsity pattern -- most of the constraints touch only a small number of variables. This is actually the same pattern that we exploit in the Riccati equations. Thanks to the importance of these methods in real applications, numerous specialized solvers have been written to explicitly exploit this sparsity (e.g. Wang09a+Dellaert12).

Continuous Time

If we wish to solve the continuous-time version of the problem, then we can discretize time and use the formulations above. The most important decision is the discretization / numerical integration scheme. For linear systems, if we assume that the control inputs are held constant for each time step (aka zero-order hold), then we can integrate the dynamics perfectly: $$\bx[n+1] = \bx[n] + \int_{t_n}^{t_n + h} \left[ {\bf A} \bx(t) + {\bf B}\bu \right]dt = e^{{\bf A}h}\bx[n] + {\bf A}^{-1}(e^{{\bf A}h} - {\bf I}){\bf B}\bu[n],$$ is the simple case (when ${\bf A}$ is invertible). But in general, we can use any finitely-parameterized representation of $\bu(t)$ and any numerical integration scheme to obtain $\bx[n+1]={\bf f}(\bx[n], \bu[n])$.

Nonconvex Trajectory Optimization

I strongly recommend that you study the convex trajectory optimization case; it can lead you to mental clarity and sense of purpose. But in practice trajectory optimization is often used to solve nonconvex problems. Our formulation can become nonconvex for a number of reasons. For example, if the dynamics are nonlinear, then the dynamic constraints become nonconvex. You may also wish to have a nonconvex objective or nonconvex additional constraint (e.g. collision avoidance). Typically we formulate these problems using tools from nonlinear programming.

Direct Transcription and Direct Shooting

The formulations that we wrote for direct transcription and direct shooting above are still valid when the dynamics are nonlinear, it's just that the resulting problem is nonconvex. For instance, the direct transcription for discrete-time systems becomes the more general: \begin{align*} \min_{\bx[\cdot],\bu[\cdot]} \quad & \ell_f(\bx[N]) + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \ell(\bx[n],\bu[n]) \\ \subjto \quad & \bx[n+1] = {\bf f}(\bx[n], \bu[n]), \quad \forall n\in[0, N-1] \\ & \bx[0] = \bx_0 \\ & + \text{additional constraints}. \end{align*} Direct shooting still works, too, since on each iteration of the algorithm we can compute $\bx[n]$ given $\bx[0]$ and $\bu[\cdot]$ by forward simulation. But things get a bit more interesting when we consider continuous-time systems.

For nonlinear dynamics, we have many choices for how to approximate the discrete dynamics $$\bx[n+1] = \bx[n] + \int_{t[n]}^{t[n+1]} f(\bx(t), \bu(t)) dt, \quad \bx(t[n]) = \bx[n].$$ For instance, in we have an entire suite of numerical integrators that achieve different levels of simulation speed and/or accuracy, both of which can be highly dependent on the details of ${\bf f}(\bx,\bu)$.

Finish supporting IntegratorBase in DirectTranscription and write an example showing how to use it here.

One very important idea in numerical integration of differential equations is the use of variable-step integration as a means for controlling integration error. Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg, also known as "RK45", is one of the most famous variable-step integrators. We typically avoid using variable steps inside a constraint (it can lead to discontinuous gradients), but it is possible to accomplish something similar in trajectory optimization by allowing the sample times, $t[\cdot]$, themselves to be decision variables. This allows the optimizer to stretch or shrink the time intervals in order to solve the problem, and is particularly useful if you do not know apriori what the total duration of the trajectory should be. Adding some constraints to these time variables is essential in order to avoid trivial solutions (like collapsing to a trajectory of zero duration). One could potentially even add constraints to bound the integration error.

Direct Collocation

It is very satisfying to have a suite of numerical integration routines available for our direct transcription. But numerical integrators are designed to solve forward in time, and this represents a design constraint that we don't actually have in our direct transcription formulation. If our goal is to obtain an accurate solution to the differential equation with a small number of function evaluations / decision variables / constraints, then some new formulations are possible that take advantage of the constrained optimization formulation. These include the so-called collocation methods.

In direct collocation (c.f., Hargraves87), both the input trajectory and the state trajectory are represented explicitly as piecewise polynomial functions. In particular, the sweet spot for this algorithm is taking $\bu(t)$ to be a first-order polynomial and $\bx(t)$ to be a cubic polynomial.

It turns out that in this sweet spot, the only decision variables we need in our optimization are the sample values $\bu(t)$ and $\bx(t)$ at the so called "break" points of the spline. You might think that you would need the coefficients of the cubic spline parameters, but you do not. For the first-order interpolation on $\bu(t)$, given $\bu(t_k)$ and $\bu(t_{k+1})$, we can solve for every value $\bu(t)$ over the interval $t \in [k, k+1]$. But we also have everything that we need for the cubic spline: given $\bx(t_k)$ and $\bu(t_k),$ we can compute $\dot\bx(t_k) = f (\bx(t_k), \bu(t_k))$; and the four values $\bx(t_k), \bx(t_{k+1}), \dot\bx (t_k), \dot\bx(t_{k+1})$ completely define all of the parameters of the cubic spline over the interval $t\in[t_k, t_{k+1}]$. This is very convenient, because it is easy for us to add additional constraints to $\bu$ and $\bx$ at the sample points (and would have been relatively harder to have to convert every constraint into constraints on the spline coefficients).

Cubic spline parameters used in the direct collocation method.

Given values of the decision variables ($\bu(t_k)$ and $\bx(t_k)$ at the break points), the spline is fully specified, but we need dim$(\bx)$ additional constraints to constrain that $\bx(t_{k+1})$ is (approximately) $\bx(t_k) + \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} f(\bx(t),\bu(t)) dt.$ In direct collocation, we impose this with derivative constraints at the so-called collocation points. In particular, if we choose the collocation times to be the midpoints of the spline, then we have that \begin{gather*} t_{c,k} = \frac{1}{2}\left(t_k + t_{k+1}\right), \qquad h_k = t_{k+1} - t_k, \\ \bu(t_{c,k}) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\bu(t_k) + \bu(t_{k+1})\right), \\ \bx(t_{c,k}) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\bx(t_k) + \bx(t_{k+1})\right) + \frac{h}{8} \left(\dot\bx(t_k) - \dot\bx(t_{k+1})\right), \\ \dot\bx(t_{c,k}) = -\frac{3}{2h}\left(\bx(t_k) - \bx(t_{k+1})\right) - \frac{1}{4} \left(\dot\bx(t_k) + \dot\bx(t_{k+1})\right). \end{gather*} These equations come directly from the equations that fit the cubic spline to the end points/derivatives then interpolate them at the midpoint. They give us precisely what we need to add the dynamics constraint to our optimization at the collocation times:\begin{align*} \min_{\bx[\cdot],\bu[\cdot]} \quad & \ell_f(\bx[N]) + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} h_n \ell(\bx[n],\bu[n]) \\ \subjto \quad & \dot\bx(t_{c,n}) = f(\bx(t_{c,n}), \bu(t_{c,n})), & \forall n \in [0,N-1] \\ & \bx[0] = \bx_0 \\ & + \text{additional constraints}. \end{align*} I hope this notation is clear -- I'm using $\bx[k] = \bx(t_k)$ as the decision variables, and the collocation constraint at $t_{c,k}$ depends on the decision variables: $\bx[k], \bx[k+1], \bu[k], \bu[k+1]$. The actual equations of motion get evaluated at both the break points, $t_k$, and the collocation times, $t_{c,k}$, because we need to evaluate the dynamics at the break points in order to write $\dot{\bx}(t_{c,k}).$

Once again, direct collocation effectively integrates the equations of motion by satisfying the constraints of the optimization -- this time producing an integration of the dynamics that is accurate to third order with effectively two evaluations of the plant dynamics per segment (since we use $\dot\bx(t_k)$ for two intervals). Hargraves87 claims, without proof, that as the break points are brought closer together, the trajectory will converge to a true solution of the differential equation. Once again it is very natural to add additional terms to the cost function or additional input/state constraints, and very easy to calculate the gradients of the objective and constraints. I personally find it very nice to explicitly account for the parametric encoding of the trajectory in the solution technique.

Direct Collocation for the Pendulum, Acrobot, and Cart-Pole

A swing-up trajectory for the simple pendulum (with severe torque limits) optimized using direct collocation.

Direct collocation also easily solves the swing-up problem for the pendulum, Acrobot, and cart-pole system. Try it for yourself:

As always, make sure you take a look at the code!

Pseudo-spectral Methods

The direct collocation method of Hargraves87 was our first example of explicitly representing the solution of the optimal control problem as a parameterized trajectory, and adding constraints to the derivatives at a series of collocation times. In the algorithm above, the representation of choice was piecewise-polynomials, e.g. cubic spines, and the spline coefficients were the decision variables. A closely related approach, often called "pseudo-spectral" optimal control, uses the same collocation idea, but represents the trajectories instead using a linear combination of global, polynomial basis functions. These methods use typically much higher-degree polynomials, but can leverage clever parameterizations to write sparse collocation objectives and to select the collocation times Garg11+Ross12a. Interestingly, The continuously-differentiable nature of the representation of these methods has led to comparatively more theorems and analysis than we have seen for other direct trajectory optimization methods Ross12a -- but despite some of the language used in these articles please remember they are still local optimization methods trying to solve a nonconvex optimization problem. While the direct collocation method above might be expected to converge to the true optimal solution by adding more segments to the piecewise polynomial (and having each segment represent a smaller interval of time), here we expect convergence to happen as we increase the degree of the polynomials.

The pseudo-spectral methods are also sometimes knowns as "orthogonal collocation" because the $N$ basis polynomials, $\phi_j(t)$, are chosen so that at the $j$th collocation time $t_j$, we have $$\phi_i(t_j) = \begin{cases} 1 & i=j, \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$ This can be accomplished by using the Lagrange polynomials, $$\phi_i(t) = \prod_{j=0, j\ne i}^{N} \frac{t-t_j}{t_i - t_j}.$$ Note that for both numerical reasons and for analysis, time is traditionally rescaled from the interval $[t_0, t_f]$ to $[-1, 1]$. Collocation times are chosen based on small variations of Gaussian quadrature, known as the "Gauss-Lobatto" which includes collocation times at $t=-1$ and $t=1$.

Interestingly, a number of papers have also considered infinite-horizon pseudo-spectral optimization by the nonlinear rescaling of the time interval $t\in[0, \infty)$ to the half-open interval $\tau\in[-1, 1)$ via $\tau = \frac{t-1}{t+1}$ Garg11+Ross12a. In this case, one chooses the collocation times so that they include $\tau = -1$ but do not include $\tau=1$, using the so-called "Gauss-Radau" points Garg11.

Add an example. Acrobot swingup?

Dynamic constraints in implicit form

There is another, seemingly subtle but potentially important, opportunity that can be exploited in a few of these transcriptions, if our main interest is in optimizing systems with significant multibody dynamics. In some cases, we can actually write the dynamics constraints directly in their implicit form. We've introduced this idea already in the context of Lyapunov analysis. In many cases, it is nicer or more efficient to obtain the equations of motion in an implicit form, ${\bf g}(\bx,\bu,\dot\bx) = 0$, and to avoid ever having to solve for the explicit form $\dot\bx = {\bf f}(\bx,\bu).$ This can become even more important when we consider systems for which the explicit form doesn't have a unique solution -- we will see examples of this when we study trajectory optimization through contact because the Coulomb model for friction actually results in a differential inclusion instead of a differential equation.

The collocation methods, which operate on the dynamic constraints at collocation points directly in their continuous form, can use the implicit form directly. It is possible to write a time-stepping (discrete-time approximation) for direct transcription using implicit integrators -- again providing constraints in implicit form. The implicit form is harder to exploit in the shooting methods.

There should really be better versions of direct transcription and the collocation methods that are specialized for second-order systems. We should only have $\bq$ as a decision variable, and be able to impose the dynamics only on the second derivatives (the first derivatives are consistent by construction). This is one of the main talking points in DMOC, even though the emphasis is on the discrete mechanics.

Solution techniques

The different transcriptions presented above represent different ways to map the (potentially continuous-time) optimal control problem into a finite set of decision variables, objectives, and constraints. But even once that choice is made, there are numerous approaches to solving this optimization problem. Any general approach to nonlinear programming can be applied here; in the python examples we've included so far, the problems are handed directly to the sequential-quadratic programming (SQP) solver SNOPT, or to the interior-point solver IPOPT.

There is also quite a bit of exploitable problem-specific structure in these trajectory optimization problems due to the sequential nature of the problem. As a result, there are some ideas that are fairly specific to the trajectory optimization formulation of optimal control, and customized solvers can often (and sometimes dramatically) outperform general purpose solvers.

This trajectory-optimization structure is easiest to discuss, and implement, in unconstrained formulations, so we will start there.

Efficiently computing gradients

Providing gradients of the objectives and constraints to the solver is not strictly required -- most solvers will obtain them from finite differences if they are not provided -- but I feel strongly that for smooth problems the solvers are faster and more robust when exact gradients are provided (systems that make and break contact might be a different storySuh22b). Providing the gradients for the direct transcription methods is very straight-forward -- we simply provide the gradients for each constraint individually. But in the direct shooting approach, where we have removed the $\bx$ decision variables from the program but still write objectives and constraints in terms of $\bx$, it would become very inefficient to compute the gradients of each objective/constraint independently. We need to leverage the chain rule.

To be concise (and slightly more general), let us define $\bx[n+1]=f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n])$ as the discrete-time approximation of the continuous dynamics; for example, the forward Euler integration scheme used above would give $f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n]) = \bx[n]+f(\bx[n],\bu[n])dt.$ Then we have \[\pd{J}{\bu_k} = \pd{\ell_f(\bx[N])}{\bu_k} + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left(\pd{\ell(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx[n]} \pd{\bx[n]}{\bu_k} + \pd{\ell(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bu_k} \right), \] where the gradient of the state with respect to the inputs can be computed during the "forward simulation", \[ \pd{\bx[n+1]}{\bu_k} = \pd{f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx[n]} \pd{\bx[n]}{\bu_k} + \pd{f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bu_k}. \] These simulation gradients can also be used in the chain rule to provide the gradients of any constraints. Note that there are a lot of terms to keep around here, on the order of (state dim) $\times$ (control dim) $\times$ (number of time steps). Ouch. Note also that many of these terms are zero; for instance with the Euler integration scheme above $\pd{\bu[n]}{\bu_k} = 0$ if $k\ne n$. (If this looks like I'm mixing two notations here, recall that I'm using $\bu_k$ to represent the decision variable and $\bu[n]$ to represent the input used in the $n$th step of the simulation.)

The special case of direct shooting without state constraints

By solving for $\bx(\cdot)$ ourselves, we've removed a large number of constraints from the optimization. If no additional state constraints are present, and the only gradients we need to compute are the gradients of the objective, then a surprisingly efficient algorithm emerges. I'll give the steps here without derivation, but will derive it in the Pontryagin section below:

  1. Simulate forward: $$\bx[n+1] = f_d(\bx[n],\bu_n),$$ from $\bx[0] = \bx_0$.
  2. Calculate backwards: $$\lambda[n-1] = \pd{\ell(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx[n]}^T + \pd{f(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx[n]}^T \lambda[n],$$ from $\lambda[N-1]=\pd{\ell_f(\bx[N])}{\bx[N]}$.
  3. Extract the gradients: $$\pd{J}{\bu[n]} = \pd{\ell(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bu[n]} + \lambda[n]^T \pd{f(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bu[n]},$$ with $\pd{J}{\bu_k} = \sum_n \pd{J}{\bu[n]}\pd{\bu[n]}{\bu_k}$.

Here $\lambda[n]$ is a vector the same size as $\bx[n]$ which has an interpretation as $\lambda[n]=\pd{J}{\bx[n+1]}^T$. The equation governing $\lambda$ is known as the adjoint equation, and it represents a dramatic efficiency improvement over calculating the huge number of simulation gradients described above. In case you are interested, yes the adjoint equation is exactly the backpropagation algorithm that is famous in the neural networks literature, or more generally a bespoke version of reverse-mode automatic differentiation. (The previous section would correspond to forward-mode automatic differentiation.)

Penalty methods and the Augmented Lagrangian

In fact, in recent years we have seen a surge in popularity in robotics for doing trajectory optimization using (often special-purpose) solvers for unconstrained trajectory optimization, where the constrained problems are transformed into unconstrained problem via penalty methods.

Manually adding penalty terms to the cost function with user-specified cost weighting can be nasty business. Often this generates a significant amount of effort in "cost function tuning"; setting the weights too large can cause the problems to become numerically ill-conditioned, but setting them too small can allow unwanted constraint violations. The augmented Lagrangian approach offers a principled solution to this problem, by automatically scheduling the weights in order to achieve "essentially exact" satisfaction of the constraints with finite penalties Bertsekas82, Nocedal06.

Methods based on the augmented Lagrangian are particularly popular for trajectory optimization these days Lin91+Toussaint14.

Zero-order optimization

Cross-entropy method (CEM) Kobilarov12 and Model-predictive path-integral control (MPPI) Williams17.

In the last few years, we've seen trajectory optimization playing a major role in "model-based reinforcement learning", especially when the model is represented using a deep neural network (e.g. Li18+Li18a). Despite the fact that neural network toolboxes can provide efficient gradients, the gradient-free trajectory optimization methods described here normally the tool of choice. There are a few possible explanations for this. The trajectory optimization problem has local minima, and the zero-order optimizers do provide some aspect of "global optimization" (at least they tend to explore multiple possible minima before converging). Neural network models fit with limited data may even have more local minima than if one used the original physics model -- the standard regression loss could be small even if the neural representation of the function is locally bumpy/non-smooth. But I think the biggest reason for the popularity of the zero-order methods is that they are trivially parallelizable, and very nicely compatible with the existing GPU neural-network workflows. When rolling out 10,000 samples in parallel costs approximately the same as rolling out 1, then this certainly makes the zero-order methods more appealing.

Getting good solutions... in practice.

As you begin to play with these algorithms on your own problems, you might feel like you're on an emotional roller-coaster. You will have moments of incredible happiness -- the solver may find very impressive solutions to highly nontrivial problems. But you will also have moments of frustration, where the solver returns an awful solution, or simply refuses to return a solution (saying "infeasible"). The frustrating thing is, you cannot distinguish between a problem that is actually infeasible, vs. the case where the solver was simply stuck in a local minima.

So the next phase of your journey is to start trying to "help" the solver along. There are two common approaches.

The first is tuning your cost function -- some people spend a lot of time adding new elements to the objective or adjusting the relative weight of the different components of the objective. This is a slippery slope, and I tend to try to avoid it (possibly to a fault; other groups tend to put out more compelling videos!).

The second approach is to give a better initial guess to your solver to put it in the vicinity of the "right" local minimal. I find this approach more satisfying, because for most problems I think there really is a "correct" formulation for the objective and constraints, and we should just aim to find the optimal solution. Once again, we do see a difference here between the direct shooting algorithms and the direct transcription / collocation algorithms. For shooting, we can only provide the solver with an initial guess for $\bu(\cdot)$, whereas the other methods allow us to also specify an initial guess for $\bx(\cdot)$ directly. I find that this can help substantially, even with very simple initializations. In the direct collocation examples for the swing-up problem of the Acrobot and cart-pole, simply providing the initial guess for $\bx(\cdot)$ as a straight line trajectory between the start and the goal was enough to help the solver find a good solution; in fact it was necessary.

Local Trajectory Feedback Design

Once we have obtained a locally optimal trajectory from trajectory optimization, we have found an open-loop trajectory that (at least locally) minimizes our optimal control cost. Up to numerical tolerances, this pair $\bu_0(t), \bx_0(t)$ represents a feasible solution trajectory of the system. But we haven't done anything, yet, to ensure that this trajectory is locally stable.

In fact, there are a few notable approximations that we've already made to get to this point: the integration accuracy of our trajectory optimization tends to be much less than the accuracy used during forward simulation (we tend to take bigger time steps during optimization to avoid adding too many decision variables), and the default convergence tolerance from the optimization toolboxes tend to satisfy the dynamic constraints only to around $10^{-6}$. As a result, if you were to simulate the optimized control trajectory directly even from the exact initial conditions used in / obtained from trajectory optimization, you might find that the state trajectory diverges from your planned trajectory.

There are a number of things we can do about this. It is possible to evaluate the local stability of the trajectory during the trajectory optimization, and add a cost or constraint that rewards open-loop stability (e.g. Mombaur05+Johnson16). This can be very effective (though it does tend to be expensive). But open-loop stability is a quite restrictive notion. A potentially more generally useful approach is to design a feedback controller to regulate the system back to the planned trajectory.

Finite-horizon LQR

We have already developed one approach for trajectory stabilization in the LQR chapter. This is one of my favorite approaches to trajectory feedback, because it provides a (numerically) closed-form solution for the controller, $\bK(t),$ and even comes with a time-varying quadratic cost-to-go function, $S(t),$ that can be used for Lyapunov analysis.

The basic procedure is to create a time-varying linearization along the trajectory in the error coordinates: $\bar\bx(t) = \bx(t) - \bx_0(t)$, $\bar\bu(t) = \bu(t)-\bu_0(t)$, and $\dot{\bar{\bx}}(t) = {\bf A}(t)\bar\bx(t) + {\bf B}(t)\bar\bu(t).$ This linearization uses all of the same gradients of the dynamics that we have been using in our trajectory optimization algorithms. Once we have the time-varying linearization, then we can apply finite-horizon LQR (see the LQR chapter for the details).

A major virtue of this approach is that we can proceed immediately to verifying the performance of the closed-loop system under the LQR policy. Specifically, we can apply the finite-time reachability analysis to obtain "funnels" that certify a desired notion of invariance -- guaranteeing that trajectories which start near the planned trajectory will stay near the planned trajectory. Please see the finite-time reachability analysis section for those details. We will put all of these ideas together in the perching case-study below.

Model-Predictive Control

The maturity, robustness, and speed of solving trajectory optimization using convex optimization leads to a beautiful idea: if we can optimize trajectories quickly enough, then we can use our trajectory optimization as a feedback policy. The recipe is simple: (1) measure the current state, (2) optimize a trajectory from the current state, (3) execute the first action from the optimized trajectory, (4) let the dynamics evolve for one step and repeat. This recipe is known as model-predictive control (MPC).

Despite the very computational nature of this controller (there is no closed-form representation of this policy; it is represented only implicitly as the solution of the optimization), there is a bounty of theoretical and algorithmic results on MPC Garcia89+Camacho13. The theoretical and practical aspects of Linear MPC are so well understood today that it is considered the de-facto generalization of LQR for controlling a linear system subject to (linear) constraints. And there are a few core ideas that practitioners should really understand.

Receding-horizon MPC

One core idea is the concept of receding-horizon MPC. Since our trajectory optimization problems are formulated over a finite-horizon, we can think each optimization as reasoning about the next $N$ time steps. If our true objective is to optimize the performance over a horizon longer than $N$ (e.g. over the infinite horizon), then it is standard to continue solving for an $N$ step horizon on each evaluation of the controller. In this sense, the total horizon under consideration continues to move forward in time (e.g. to recede).

Recursive feasibility

Some care must be taken in receding-horizon formulations because on each new step we are introducing new costs and constraints into the problem (the ones that would have been associated with time $N+1$ on the previous solve) -- it would be very bad to march forward in time solving convex optimization problems only to suddenly encounter a situation where the solver returns "infeasible!". One can design MPC formulations that guarantee recursive feasibility -- e.g. guarantee that if a feasible solution is found at time $n$, then the solver will also find a feasible solution at time $n+1$.

Perhaps the simplest mechanism for guaranteeing recursive feasibility in an optimization for stabilizing a fixed point, $(\bx^*, \bu^*)$, is to add a final-value constraint to the receding horizon, $\bx[N] = \bx^*$. This idea is simple but important. Considering the trajectories/constraints in absolute time, then on step $k$ of the algorithm, we are optimizing for $\bx[k], ... , \bx[k+N],$ and $\bu[k], ..., \bu[k+N-1]$; let us say that we have found a feasible solution for this problem. The danger in receding-horizon control is that when we shift to the next step ($k+1$) we introduce constraints on the system at $\bx[k+N+1]$ for the first time. But if our feasible solution in step $k$ had $\bx[k+N] = \bx^*$, then we know that setting $\bx[k+N+1] = \bx^*, \bu[k+N] = \bu^*$ is guaranteed to provide a feasible solution to the new optimization problem in step $k+1$. With feasibility guaranteed, the solver is free to search for a lower-cost solution (which may be available now because we've shifted the final-value constraint further into the future). It is also possible to formulate MPC problems that guarantee recursive feasibility even in the presence of modeling errors and disturbances (c.f. Bemporad99).

MPC and Lyapunov functions

Even though the MPC policy is only defined implicitly as the result of an optimization problem, it is still possible to make Lyapunov stability arguments. If, in the receding-horizon MPC setting, in addition to recursive feasibility (of the constraints) we have the property that the cost added at step $k+N+1$ is less than or equal to the cost removed corresponding to step $k$. Then the optimal cost, $J(\bx,k)$, of the trajectory optimization is a Lyapunov function: $$\forall \bx, k, \quad J^*({\bf f}(\bx, \bu^*), k+1) \le J^*(\bx, k).$$ Once again, a particularly simple way to achieve this is to have a final-value constraint at the $N$th step of every optimization, which gets me to an equilibrium configuration with zero cost. But, again, there are ways to extend this Lyapunov argument even in the presence of modeling errors and disturbances (c.f. Bemporad99).

Unlike the nice explicit time-varying quadratic Lyapunov functions that we get from finite-horizon LQR, this Lyapunov function in general does not admit a compact representation (this is the object of study in explicit MPC), and is more difficult to use with e.g. sums-of-squares optimization.

Case Study: A glider that can land on a perch like a bird

From 2008 til 2014, my group conducted a series of increasingly sophisticated investigations Cory08+Roberts09+Cory10a+Moore11a+Moore12+Moore14b which asked the question: can a fixed-wing UAV land on a perch like a bird?

Basic setup for the glider landing on a perch.

At the outset, this was a daunting task. When birds land on a perch, they pitch up and expose their wings to an "angle-of-attack" that far exceeds the typical flight envelope. Airplanes traditionally work hard to avoid this regime because it leads to aerodynamic "stall" -- a sudden loss of lift after the airflow separates from the wing. But this loss of lift is also accompanied by a significant increase in drag, and birds exploit this when they rapidly decelerate to land on a perch. Post-stall aerodynamics are a challenge for control because (1) the aerodynamics are time-varying (characterized by periodic vortex shedding) and nonlinear, (2) it is much harder to build accurate models of this flight regime, at least in a wind tunnel, and (3) stall implies a loss of attached flow on the wing and therefore on the control surfaces, so a potentially large reduction in control authority.

We picked the project initially thinking that it would be a nice example for model-free control (like reinforcement learning -- since the models were unknown). In the end, however, it turned out to be the project that really taught me about the power of model-based trajectory optimization and linear optimal control. By conducting dynamic system identification experiments in a motion capture environment, we were able to fit both surprisingly simple models (based on flat-plate theory) to the dynamicsCory08, and also more accurate models using "neural-network-like" terms to capture the residuals between the model and the data Moore14b. This made model-based control viable, but the dynamics were still complex -- while trajectory optimization should work, I was quite dubious about the potential for regulating to those trajectories with only linear feedback.

I was wrong. Over and over again, I watched time-varying linear quadratic regulators take highly nontrivial corrective actions -- for instance, dipping down early in the trajectory to gain kinetic energy or tipping up to dump energy out of the system -- in order to land on the perch at the final time. Although the quality of the linear approximation of the dynamics did degrade the farther that we got from the nominal trajectory, the validity of the controller dropped off much less quickly (even as the vector field changed, the direction that the controller needed to push did not). This was also the thinking that got me initially so interested in understanding the regions of attraction of linear control on nonlinear systems.

In the end, the experiments were very successful. We started searching for the "simplest" aircraft that we could build that would capture the essential control dynamics, reduce complexity, and still accomplish the task. We ended up building a series of flat-plate foam gliders (no propellor) with only a single actuator to control the elevator. We added dihedral to the wings to help the aircraft stay in the longitudinal plane. The simplicity of these aircraft, plus the fact that they could be understood through the lens of quite simple models makes them one of my favorite canonical underactuated systems.

The original perching experiments from Cory08 in a motion capture arena with a simple rope acting as the perch. The main videos were shot with high-speed cameras; an entire perching trajectory takes about .8 seconds.

The Flat-Plate Glider Model

The flat-plate glider model. Note that traditionally aircraft coordinates are chosen so that positive pitch brings the nose up; but this means that positive z is down (to have a right-handed system). For consistency, I've chosen to stick with the vehicle coordinate system that we use throughout the text -- positive z is up, but positive pitch is down.

In our experiments, we found the dynamics of our aircraft Cory08 were captured very well by the so-called "flat plate model" Hoerner85. In flat plate theory lift and drag forces of a wing are summarized by a single force at the center-of-pressure of the wing acting normal to the wing, with magnitude: $$f_n(S, {\bf n}, \bv) = \rho S \sin\alpha |\bv|^2 = -\rho S ({\bf n} \cdot \bv) |\bv|,$$ where $\rho$ is the density of the air, $S$ is the area of the wing, $\alpha$ is the angle of attack of the surface, ${\bf n}$ is the normal vector of the lifting surface, and $\bv$ is the velocity of the center of pressure relative to the air. This corresponds to having lift and drag coefficients $$c_{\text{lift}} = 2\sin\alpha\cos\alpha, \quad c_{\text{drag}} = 2\sin^2\alpha.$$ In our glider model, we summarize all of the aerodynamic forces by contributions of two lifting surfaces, the wing (including some contribution from the horizontal fuselage) denoted by subscript $w$ and the elevator denoted by subscript $e$, with centers at $\bp_w = [x_w, z_w]^T$ and $\bp_e = [x_e, z_e]^T$ given by the kinematics: $$\bp_w = \bp - l_w\begin{bmatrix} c_\theta \\ -s_\theta \end{bmatrix},\quad \bp_e = \bp - l_h \begin{bmatrix} c_\theta \\ -s_\theta \end{bmatrix} - l_e \begin{bmatrix} c_{\theta+\phi} \\ -s_{\theta+\phi} \end{bmatrix},$$ where the origin of our vehicle coordinate system, $\bp = [x,z]^T$, is chosen to be the center of mass. We assume still air, so $\bv = \dot{\bp}$ for both the wing and the elevator. We assume that the elevator is massless, and the actuator controls velocity directly (note that this breaks our "control affine" structure, but is more realistic for the tiny hobby servos we were dealing with). This gives us a total of 7 state variables $\bx = [x, z, \theta, \phi, \dot{x}, \dot{z}, \dot\theta]^T$ and one control input $\bu = \dot\phi.$ The resulting equations of motion are: \begin{gather*} {\bf n}_w = \begin{bmatrix} s_\theta \\ c_\theta \end{bmatrix}, \quad {\bf n}_e = \begin{bmatrix} s_{\theta+\phi} \\ c_{\theta+\phi} \end{bmatrix}, \\ f_w = f_n(S_w, {\bf n}_w, \dot\bp_w), \quad f_e = f_n(S_e, {\bf n}_e, \dot\bp_e), \\ \ddot{x} = \frac{1}{m} \left(f_w s_\theta + f_e s_{\theta+\phi} \right), \\ \ddot{z} = \frac{1}{m} \left(f_w c_\theta + f_e c_{\theta+\phi} \right) - g, \\ \ddot\theta = \frac{1}{I} \left( l_w f_w + (l_h c_\phi + l_e) f_e \right). \end{gather*}

Trajectory optimization

Trajectory stabilization

Rollouts with the finite-horizon LQR regulator.
Rendering of the inverse of the largest eigenvalue of ${\bf S}(t)$ overlaid on the perching trajectory, demonstrating the regions of poor controllability as the velocity of the vehicle approaches zero Roberts09.

Trajectory funnels

Finite-time invariant sets for the LQR controller around a perching trajectory (obtained via sums-of-squares optimization).

Beyond a single trajectory

The linear controller around a nominal trajectory was surprisingly effective, but it's not enough. We'll return to this example again when we talk about "feedback motion planning", in order to discuss how to find a controller that can work for many more initial conditions -- ideally all of the initial conditions of interest for which the aircraft is capable of getting to the goal.

Add Joe's perching funnels.

Pontryagin's Minimum Principle

The tools that we've been developing for numerical trajectory optimization are closely tied to theorems from (analytical) optimal control. Let us take one section to appreciate those connections.

What precisely does it mean for a trajectory, $\bx(\cdot),\bu(\cdot)$, to be locally optimal? It means that if I were to perturb that trajectory in any way (e.g. change $\bu_3$ by $\epsilon$), then I would either incur higher cost in my objective function or violate a constraint. For an unconstrained optimization, a necessary condition for local optimality is that the gradient of the objective at the solution be exactly zero. Of course the gradient can also vanish at local maxima or saddle points, but it certainly must vanish at local minima. We can generalize this argument to constrained optimization using Lagrange multipliers.

explain "direct" vs "indirect" methods somewhere in here.

Lagrange multiplier derivation of the adjoint equations

Let us use Lagrange multipliers to derive the necessary conditions for our constrained trajectory optimization problem in discrete time \begin{align*} \min_{\bx[\cdot],\bu[\cdot]} & \ell_f(\bx[N]) + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \ell(\bx[n],\bu[n]),\\ \subjto \quad & \bx[n+1] = f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n]). \end{align*} Formulate the Lagrangian, \[L(\bx[\cdot],\bu[\cdot],\lambda[\cdot]) = \ell_f(\bx[N]) + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \ell(\bx[n],\bu[n]) + \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda^T[n] \left(f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n]) - \bx[n+1]\right), \] and set the derivatives to zero to obtain the adjoint equation method described for the shooting algorithm above: \begin{gather*} \forall n\in[0,N-1], \pd{L}{\lambda[n]} = f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n]) - \bx[n+1] = 0 \Rightarrow \bx[n+1] = f(\bx[n],\bu[n]) \\ \forall n\in[0,N-1], \pd{L}{\bx[n]} = \pd{\ell(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx} + \lambda^T[n] \pd{f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx} - \lambda^T[n-1] = 0 \\ \quad \Rightarrow \lambda[n-1] = \pd{\ell(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx}^T + \pd{f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bx}^T \lambda[n]. \\ \pd{L}{\bx[N]} = \pd{\ell_f}{\bx}^T - \lambda^T[N-1] = 0 \Rightarrow \lambda[N-1] = \pd{\ell_f}{\bx} \\ \forall n\in[0,N-1], \pd{L}{\bu[n]} = \pd{\ell(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bu} + \lambda^T[n] \pd{f_d(\bx[n],\bu[n])}{\bu} = 0. \end{gather*} Therefore, if we are given an initial condition $\bx_0$ and an input trajectory $\bu[\cdot]$, we can verify that it satisfies the necessary conditions for optimality by simulating the system forward in time to solve for $\bx[\cdot]$, solving the adjoint equation backwards in time to solve for $\lambda[\cdot]$, and verifying that $\pd{L}{\bu[n]} = 0$ for all $n$. The fact that $\pd{J}{\bu} = \pd{L}{\bu}$ when $\pd{L}{\bx} = 0$ and $\pd{L}{\lambda} = 0$ follows from some basic results in the calculus of variations.

Necessary conditions for optimality in continuous time

You won't be surprised to hear that these necessary conditions have an analogue in continuous time. I'll state it here without derivation. Given the initial conditions, $\bx_0$, a continuous dynamics, $\dot\bx = f(\bx,\bu)$, and the instantaneous cost $\ell(\bx,\bu)$, for a trajectory $\bx(\cdot),\bu(\cdot)$ defined over $t\in[t_0,t_f]$ to be optimal it must satisfy the conditions that \begin{align*} \forall t\in[t_0,t_f],\quad & \dot{\bx} = f(\bx,\bu), \quad &\bx(0)=\bx_0\\ \forall t\in[t_0,t_f],\quad & -\dot\lambda = \pd{\ell}{\bx}^T + \pd{f}{\bx}^T \lambda, \quad &\lambda(T) = \pd{\ell_f}{\bx}^T \\ \forall t\in[t_0,t_f],\quad & \pd{\ell}{\bu} + \lambda^T\pd{f}{\bu} = 0.& \end{align*}

In fact the statement can be generalized even beyond this to the case where $\bu$ has constraints. The result is known as Pontryagin's minimum principle -- giving necessary conditions for a trajectory to be optimal.

Pontryagin's Minimum Principle

Adapted from Bertsekas00a. Given the initial conditions, $\bx_0$, a continuous dynamics, $\dot\bx = f(\bx,\bu)$, and the instantaneous cost $\ell(\bx,\bu)$, for a trajectory $\bx^*(\cdot),\bu^*(\cdot)$ defined over $t\in[t_0,t_f]$ to be optimal it must satisfy the conditions that \begin{align*} \forall t\in[t_0,t_f],\quad & \dot{\bx}^* = f(\bx^*,\bu^*), \quad &\bx^*(0)=\bx_0\\ \forall t\in[t_0,t_f],\quad & -\dot \lambda^* = \pd{\ell}{\bx}^T + \pd{f}{\bx}^T \lambda^*, \quad &\lambda^*(T) = \pd{\ell_f}{\bx}^T \\ \forall t\in[t_0,t_f],\quad & u^* = \argmin_{\bu\in{\cal U}} \left[\ell(\bx^*,\bu) + (\lambda^*)^T f(\bx^*,\bu) \right].& \end{align*}

Note that the terms which are minimized in the final line of the theorem are commonly referred to as the Hamiltonian of the optimal control problem, $$H(\bx,\bu,\lambda,t) = \ell(\bx,\bu) + \lambda^T f(\bx,\bu).$$ It is distinct from, but inspired by, the Hamiltonian of classical mechanics. Remembering that $\lambda$ has an interpretation as $\pd{J}{\bx}^T$, you should also recognize it from the HJB.

Variations and Extensions

Multiple Shooting: Direct transcription is the limit of multiple shooting where every time step is a different "shot".

Differential Flatness

There are some very important cases where nonconvex trajectory optimization can be turned back into convex trajectory optimization based on a clever change of variables. One of the key ideas in this space is the notion of "differential flatness", which is philosophically quite close to the idea of partial feedback linearization that we discussed for acrobots and cart-pole systems. But perhaps the most famous application of differential flatness, which we will explore here, is actually for quadrotors.

One of the most important lessons from partial feedback linearization, is the idea that if you have $m$ actuators, then you basically get to control exactly $m$ quantities of your system. Differential flatness exploits this same idea (choosing $m$ outputs), but in the opposite direction. The idea is that, for some systems, if you give me a trajectory in those $m$ coordinates, it may in fact dictate what all of the states/actuators must have been doing. The fact that you can only execute a subset of possible trajectories can, in this case, make trajectory planning much easier!

Let's start with an example...

Differential flatness for the Planar Quadrotor

The planar quadrotor model described earlier has 3 degrees of freedom ($x,y,\theta$) but only two actuators (one for each propellor). My claim is that, if you give me a trajectory for just the location of the center of mass: $x(t), y(t), \forall t \in [t_0, t_f],$ then I will be able to infer what $\theta(t)$ must be over that same interval in order to be feasible. Furthermore, I can even infer $\bu(t)$. There is one technical condition required: the trajectory you give me for $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ needs to be continuously differentiable (four times).

To see this, recall the equations of motion for this system were given by: \begin{gather} m \ddot{x} = -(u_1 + u_2)\sin\theta, \label{eq:quad_x}\\ m \ddot{y} = (u_1 + u_2)\cos\theta - mg, \label{eq:quad_y}\\ I \ddot\theta = r (u_1 - u_2) \label{eq:quad_theta} \end{gather} Observe that from ($\ref{eq:quad_x}$) and ($\ref{eq:quad_y}$) we have $$\frac{-m \ddot{x}}{ m \ddot{y} + mg} = \frac{(u_1 + u_2)\sin\theta}{(u_1+u_2)\cos\theta} = \tan\theta.$$ In words, given $\ddot{x}(t)$ and $\ddot{y}(t)$, I can solve for $\theta$(t). I can differentiate this relationship (in time) twice more to obtain $\ddot\theta$. Using ($\ref{eq:quad_theta}$) with ($\ref{eq:quad_x}$) or ($\ref{eq:quad_y}$) give us two linear equations for $u_1$ and $u_2$ which are easily solved.

Now you can see why we need the original trajectories to be smooth -- the solution to $\bu(t)$ depends on $\ddot\theta(t)$ which depends on $\frac{d^4 x(t)}{dt^4}$ and $\frac{d^4 y(t)}{dt^4}$; we need those derivatives to exist along the entire trajectory.

What's more -- if we ignore input limits for a moment -- any sufficiently smooth trajectory of $x(t), y(t)$ is feasible, so if I can simply find one that avoids the obstacles, then I have designed my state trajectory. As we will see, optimizing even high-degree piecewise-polynomials is actually an easy problem (it works out to be a quadratic program), assuming the constraints are convex. In practice, this means that once you have determined whether to go left or right around the obstacles, trajectory design is easy and fast.

I've coded up a simple example of that for you here:

Differential flatness for the planar quadrotor -- by solving a simple optimization to find a smooth trajectory for $x(t)$ and $y(t)$, I can back out $\theta(t)$ and even $\bu(t)$.

The example above demonstrates that the planar quadrotor system is differentially flat in the outputs $x(t)$, $y(t)$. More generally, if we have a dynamical system $$\dot{\bx} = f(\bx, \bu),$$ and we design some output coordinates (essentially "task-space"): $$\bz(t) = h\left(\bx, \bu, \frac{d\bu}{dt}, ..., \frac{d^k\bu}{dt^k}\right),$$ such that we can write the $\bx$ and $\bu$ purely as a function of the output and it's time derivatives, \begin{gather*} \bx (t) = \bx\left(\bz, \frac{d\bz}{dt}, ..., \frac{d^k\bz}{dt^k}\right), \\ \bu (t) = \bu\left(\bz, \frac{d\bz}{dt}, .., \frac{d^k\bz}{dt^k}\right),\end{gather*} then we say that the system $f$ is differentially flat in the outputs $\bz$ Murray95. And the requirement for showing that a system is differentially flat in those outputs is to write the function which solves for $\bx(t)$ and $\bu(t)$ as a function of only $\bz(t)$ and its time derivatives.

I'm not aware of any numerical recipes for showing that a system is differentially flat nor for finding potential flat outputs, but I admit I haven't worked on it nor looked for those recipes. That would be interesting! I think of differential flatness as a property that one must find for your system -- typically via a little mechanical intuition and a lot of algebra. Once found, it can be very useful.

Differential flatness for the 3D Quadrotor

Probably the most famous example of differential flatness is on the full 3D quadrotors. Mellinger11 showed that the 3D quadrotor is differentially flat in the outputs $\{x,y,z,\theta_{yaw}\}$. They used this, to dramatic effect, to perform all sorts of acrobatics. The resulting videos are awesome (and probably deserve a lot of credit for the widespread popularity of quadrotors in academia and industry over the next few years).

Aggressive quadrotor trajectories using differential flatness from Mellinger11.

A few things to note about these examples, just so we also understand the limitations. First, the technique above is great for designing trajectories, but additional work is required to stabilizing those trajectories (we'll cover that topic in more detail later in the notes). Trajectory stabilization benefits greatly from good state estimation, and the examples above were all performed in a motion capture arena. Also, the "simple" version of the trajectory design that is fast enough to be used for flying through moving hoops is restricted to convex optimization formulations -- which means one has to hard-code apriori the decisions about whether to go left or right / up or down around each obstacle.

Iterative LQR and Differential Dynamic Programming

There is another approach to trajectory optimization (at least for initial-value problems) that has gotten quite popular lately. Iterative LQR (iLQR)Li04 also known as Sequential Linear Quadratic optimal control) Sideris05. The idea is simple enough: given an initial guess at the input and state trajectory, make a linear approximation of the dynamics and a quadratic approximation of the cost function. Then compute and simulate the time-varying LQR controller to find a new input and state trajectory. Repeat until convergence.

The motivation behind iterative LQR is quite appealing -- it leverages the surprising structure of the Riccati equations to come up with a second-order update to the trajectory after a single backward pass of the Riccati equation followed by a forward simulation. Anecdotally, the convergence is fast and robust. Numerous applications...Farshidian17+Tassa12.

One key limitation of iLQR is that it only supports unconstrained trajectory optimization -- at least via the Riccati solution. The natural extension for constrained optimization would be to replace the Riccati solution with an iterative linear model-predictive control (MPC) optimization; this would result in a quadratic program and is very close to what is happening in SQP. But a more common approach in the current robotics literature is to add any constraints into the objective function using penalty methods, especially using Augmented Lagrangian.

Differential Dynamic Programming (DDP) Jacobson70 is inspired by the idea of solving locally quadratic approximations of the HJB equations. The resulting algorithm is almost identical to iLQR; the only difference is that DDP uses a second-order approximation of the plant dynamics instead of a first-order (linear) one. The conventional wisdom is that taking these extra plant derivatives is probably not worth the extra cost of computing them; in most cases iLQR converges just as quickly (though the details will be problem dependent). Unfortunately, despite the distinction between these algorithms being unambiguous and uncontroversial, you will find many papers that incorrectly write DDP when they are actually using iLQR.


Mixed-integer convex optimization for non-convex constraints

Mixed-integer planning around obstacles

Richards02, Mellinger12, Deits15+Landry15b.

Recent work makes a much stronger connection between the optimization-approaches to graph search with our continuous optimization Marcucci21. In this work, the authors have gone to great lengths to produce "strong" mixed-integer formulations with extremely tight convex relaxations (solving a convex relaxation of the problem is often sufficient to solve the original problem). This approach provides excellent trajectory optimization solutions to minimum-time problems (with affine dynamics), and/or hybrid systems described as piecewise-affine systems (PWA) Marcucci21. It also forms the basis for recent work on kinematic trajectory optimization around obstacles Marcucci22.

Explicit model-predictive control



Direct Shooting vs Direct Transcription

In this coding exercise we explore in detail the computational advantages of direct transcription over direct shooting methods. The exercise can be completed entirely in . To simplify the analysis, we will apply these two methods to a finite-horizon LQR problem. You are asked to complete four pieces of code:

  1. Use the given implementation of direct shooting to analyze the numerical conditioning of this approach.
  2. Complete the given implementation of the direct transcription method.
  3. Verify that the cost to go from direct trascription approaches the LQR cost to go as the time horizon grows.
  4. Analyze the numerical conditioning of direct transcription.
  5. Implement the dynamic programming recursion (a.k.a. "Riccati recursion") to efficiently solve the linear algebra underlying the direct transcription method.

Orbital Transfer via Trajectory Optimization

For this exercise you will work exclusively in . You are asked to find, via nonlinear trajectory optimization, a path that efficiently transfers a rocket from the Earth to Mars, while avoiding a cloud of asteroids. The skeleton of the optimization problem is already there, but several important pieces are missing. More details are in the notebook, but you will need to:

  1. Enforce the maximum thrust constraints.
  2. Enforce the maximum velocity constraints.
  3. Ensure that the rocket does not collide with any of the asteroids.
  4. Add an objective function to minimize fuel consumption.

Iterative Linear Quadratic Regulator

The exercise is self-contained in . In this exercise you will derive and implement the iterative Linear Quadratic Regulator (iLQR). You will evaluate it's functionality by planning trajectories for an autonomous vehicle. You will need to:

  1. Define an integrator for continuous dynamics.
  2. Compute a trajectory given an initial state and a control trajectory.
  3. Sum up the total cost of that trajectory.
  4. Derive the coefficients of the quadratic Q-function.
  5. Optimize for the optimal control law.
  6. Derive the update of the value function backwards in time.
  7. Implement the forward pass of iLQR.
  8. Implement the backward pass of iLQR.

Differential Flatness

Consider a planar rigid body of mass $m$ and moment of inertia $I$ moving under the influence of gravity and forces $F_1$ and $F_2$ acting at point $P$ of the body (shown in image). The state of the body at any time is defined by $\mathbf{x} = (x, y, \theta)$ where $x$ and $y$ are the COM positions and $\theta$ is the orientation of the body, respectively. The equations of motion are given by: \begin{align*} m\ddot{x} &= F_1 \cos \theta + F_2 \sin \theta \\ m\ddot{y} &= F_1 \sin \theta - F_2 \cos \theta - mg \\ I\ddot{\theta} &= rF_1 \end{align*}

Planar rigid body controlled by body fixed forces.
  1. Show that the system is differentially flat in the output $Z$, the center of oscillation, given by $\mathbf{z} = (z_1, z_2)$ \begin{equation*} z_1 = x - \frac{I}{mr} \sin \theta \quad \quad z_2 = y + \frac{I}{mr} \cos \theta \end{equation*} In other words, given a sufficiently differentiable trajectory of the center of oscillation, $\mathbf{z}(t)$, show that we can uniquely determine the body's trajectory $\mathbf{x}(t)$, upto an ambiguity of $\pi$ in $\theta$.
    Hint: Example 10.3 is a good reference. Eliminate the forces from one of the equations of motion. Use $\ddot{z}_1$ and $\ddot{z}_2$ to substitute for $\ddot{x}$ and $\ddot{y}$.
  2. Suppose we can control the magnitude of forces $F_1$ and $F_2$ that act at point $P$, and want to find a trajectory such the body passes through certain waypoints. Assuming no constraints on $F_1$ and $F_2$, what will be a good choice of decision variables to find a solution for the trajectory? Justify your answer.
  3. If the magnitude of forces $F_1$ and $F_2$ are constrained to be less than $F_{max}$, how will it affect the above trajectory optimization, in particular, will the formulation still be convex?


  1. John T. Betts, "Survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 193-207, 1998.

  2. John T. Betts, "Practical Methods for Optimal Control Using Nonlinear Programming", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics , 2001.

  3. Yang Wang and Stephen Boyd, "Fast model predictive control using online optimization", IEEE Transactions on control systems technology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 267--278, 2009.

  4. Frank Dellaert, "Factor graphs and GTSAM: A hands-on introduction", Tech. Report, GT-RIM-CP&R-2012-002, 2012.

  5. C. R. Hargraves and S. W. Paris, "Direct Trajectory Optimization using Nonlinear Programming and Collocation", J Guidance, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 338-342, July-August, 1987.

  6. Divya Garg and Michael Patterson and Camila Francolin and Christopher Darby and Geoffrey Huntington and William Hager and Anil Rao, "Direct trajectory optimization and costate estimation of finite-horizon and infinite-horizon optimal control problems using a Radau pseudospectral method", Computational Optimization and Applications, vol. 49, pp. 335-358, 2011.

  7. I. Michael Ross and Mark Karpenko, "A review of pseudospectral optimal control: {From} theory to flight", Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 182--197, dec, 2012.

  8. H. J. Terry Suh and Max Simchowitz and Kaiqing Zhang and Russ Tedrake, "Do Differentiable Simulators Give Better Policy Gradients?", Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning , vol. 162, pp. 20668--20696, July, 2022. [ link ]

  9. Dimitri P Bertsekas, "Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods", Academic press , 1982.

  10. Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright, "Numerical optimization", Springer , 2006.

  11. TC Lin and JS Arora, "Differential dynamic programming technique for constrained optimal control", Computational Mechanics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 27--40, 1991.

  12. Marc Toussaint, "A Novel Augmented Lagrangian Approach for Inequalities and Convergent Any-Time Non-Central Updates", , 2014.

  13. Marin Kobilarov, "Cross-entropy motion planning", The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 855--871, 2012.

  14. Grady Williams and Andrew Aldrich and Evangelos A Theodorou, "Model predictive path integral control: From theory to parallel computation", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 344--357, 2017.

  15. Yunzhu Li and Jiajun Wu and Jun-Yan Zhu and Joshua B. Tenenbaum and Antonio Torralba and Russ Tedrake, "Propagation Networks for Model-Based Control Under Partial Observation", Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May, 2019. [ link ]

  16. Yunzhu Li and Jiajun Wu and Russ Tedrake and Joshua B. Tenenbaum and Antonio Torralba, "Learning Particle Dynamics for Manipulating Rigid Bodies, Deformable Objects, and Fluids", Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019. [ link ]

  17. Katja D. Mombaur and Hans Georg Bock and Johannes P. Schloder and Richard W. Longman, "Open-loop stable solutions of periodic optimal control problems in robotics", Z. Angew. Math. Mech. (ZAMM), vol. 85, no. 7, pp. 499 – 515, 2005.

  18. Aaron M Johnson and Jennifer E King and Siddhartha Srinivasa, "Convergent planning", IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1044--1051, 2016.

  19. Carlos E Garcia and David M Prett and Manfred Morari, "Model predictive control: theory and practice—a survey", Automatica, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 335--348, 1989.

  20. Eduardo F Camacho and Carlos Bordons Alba, "Model predictive control", Springer Science \& Business Media , 2013.

  21. Alberto Bemporad and Manfred Morari, "Robust model predictive control: A survey", Robustness in identification and control , vol. 245, pp. 207-226, 1999.

  22. Rick Cory and Russ Tedrake, "Experiments in Fixed-Wing {UAV} Perching", Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference , pp. 1-12, 2008. [ link ]

  23. John W. Roberts and Rick Cory and Russ Tedrake, "On the Controllability of Fixed-Wing Perching", Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC) , 2009. [ link ]

  24. Rick Cory, "Supermaneuverable Perching", PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June, 2010. [ link ]

  25. Joseph Moore, "Powerline Perching with a Fixed-wing {UAV}", , May, 2011. [ link ]

  26. Joseph Moore and Russ Tedrake, "Control Synthesis and Verification for a Perching {UAV} using {LQR}-Trees", In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 8, December, 2012. [ link ]

  27. Joseph Moore, "Robust Post-Stall Perching with a Fixed-Wing UAV", PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September, 2014. [ link ]

  28. Sighard F. Hoerner and Henry V. Borst, "Fluid-{Dynamic} {Lift}", Mrs. Liselotte A. Hoerner , 1985.

  29. Dimitri P. Bertsekas, "Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control", Athena Scientific , 2000.

  30. Richard M. Murray and Muruhan Rathinam and Willem Sluis, "Differential flatness of mechanical control systems: A catalog of prototype systems", ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition , 1995.

  31. D. Mellinger and V. Kumar, "Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors", Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 2520--2525, 2011.

  32. Weiwei Li and Emanuel Todorov, "Iterative Linear Quadratic Regulator Design for Nonlinear Biological Movement Systems.", International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics , pp. 222--229, 2004.

  33. Athanasios Sideris and James E. Bobrow, "A Fast Sequential Linear Quadratic Algorithm for Solving Unconstrained Nonlinear Optimal Control Problems", , February, 2005.

  34. Farbod Farshidian and Edo Jelavic and Asutosh Satapathy and Markus Giftthaler and Jonas Buchli, "Real-time motion planning of legged robots: A model predictive control approach", 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids) , pp. 577--584, 2017.

  35. Y. Tassa and T. Erez and E. Todorov, "Synthesis and stabilization of complex behaviors through online trajectory optimization", Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on , pp. 4906--4913, 2012.

  36. David H. Jacobson and David Q. Mayne, "Differential Dynamic Programming", American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc. , 1970.

  37. A.~Richards and J.P.~How, "Aircraft trajectory planning with collision avoidance using mixed integer linear programming", Proceedings of the 2002 American Control Conference , vol. 3, pp. 1936--1941, 2002.

  38. Daniel Mellinger and Alex Kushleyev and Vijay Kumar, "Mixed-integer quadratic program trajectory generation for heterogeneous quadrotor teams", 2012 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation , pp. 477--483, 2012.

  39. Robin Deits and Russ Tedrake, "Efficient Mixed-Integer Planning for {UAVs} in Cluttered Environments", Proceedings of the {IEEE} International Conference on Robotics and Automation ({ICRA}) , 2015. [ link ]

  40. Benoit Landry and Robin Deits and Peter R. Florence and Russ Tedrake, "Aggressive Quadrotor Flight through Cluttered Environments Using Mixed Integer Programming", Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May, 2016. [ link ]

  41. Tobia Marcucci and Jack Umenberger and Pablo A. Parrilo and Russ Tedrake, "Shortest Paths in Graphs of Convex Sets", arXiv preprint, 2022. [ link ]

  42. Tobia Marcucci and Mark Petersen and David von Wrangel and Russ Tedrake, "Motion Planning around Obstacles with Convex Optimization", , 2022. [ link ]

  43. A. Alessio and A. Bemporad, "A survey on explicit model predictive control", Int. Workshop on Assessment and Future Directions of Nonlinear Model Predictive Control , 2009.

  44. O. Junge and J. E. Marsden and S. Ober-Bloebaum, "Discrete mechanics and optimal control", Proceedings of the 16th IFAC World Congress , 2005.

Previous Chapter Table of contents Next Chapter